Territorial Bloggings

One of the big, controversial topics at last year’s LCMS national convention was the big push for a special convention in 2009 to deal with a massive restructuring of the synodical constitution. After encountering more resistance than initially anticipated, the special convention was tabled & will now be folded into the next regular convention in 2010.

Over at Extreme Theology, Chris Rosebrough has put out a post — Changing the LCMS — that is, I think, sadly prescient about the current, and future, state of leadership & affairs in the LCMS. In a nutshell, Chris shows that SP Kieschnick is following a large-organization change management guide almost step-by-step. And the next key step is the special convention topic of the radical constitutional restructuring.

It’s really pretty simple. And I’m not even attributing ill intent, no matter how much I disagree with the course of action. I don’t think it’s evil. I think it’s mistaken & ill-advised, but I don’t think anyone is trying to destroy synod out of nefarious intent. No, SPK believes he’s doing the right thing. He’s just wrong in that belief.

It’s all the more interesting to see this in the light of the unfolding controversy surrounding the Issues, Etc. debacle, which is spinning up again today following some new statements by SPK & the Council of Presidents, both of which were heavy on the passive voice bemoaning of conflict & calls to move on, but light on actual answers & claiming of responsibility. If you haven’t already, you’ll want to check out the usual suspects (Augsburg1530 & Weedon’s Blog for good info.

When it comes to writing in general, the passive voice is an ill-advised choice. But when it comes to a controversial situation like this, where mistakes were made & responsibility needs to be taken? It’s downright cowardly & sinful. It’s like I wrote elsewhere earlier today:

It smacks of the all-too-common use of the passive voice to minimize & make a crisis go away.

“Mistakes were made. We need to move on & get past this.”

Yes, but who made the mistakes & why? What will be done to fix these mistakes? To ensure that similar mistakes won’t happen again in the future? What about all of the other related issues & questions that have cropped up as a result of these “mistakes”?

Forgiveness can only be given once repentance has been offered. Even then, forgiveness does not obviate consequences & responsibility for actions.

What was done, and what has come to light certainly seem to be worthy of responsibility and consequences - not blind trust (for that would not be good stewardship on our part, nor does the 8th Commandment demand blind trust…)

I’m just wondering now, how in the world, if at all, a God-pleasing result can be found in all of this. I’m not sure that one can. I think that the best we can do might just be to find the least sinful endgame & play that out…

-ghp